Allahabad High Court
TANUJ JAIN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VINOD DIWAKAR
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, and it may be withdrawn with liberty to pursue that remedy.
Summary
Petitioners Tanuj Jain and another filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging a decision of the Meerut Development Authority. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioners could obtain relief under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, an alternative statutory remedy that had not been pursued. The petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petition while retaining the option to approach the statutory remedy. The Court accepted the withdrawal, dismissed the petition, and granted liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy. The order also provided for condonation of any delay in filing a revision, subject to filing within one month of the certified copy.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, is available but not availed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- maintainability
- alternative statutory remedy
- Section 41(3)
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act
- withdrawal
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 43340 of 2025
Tanuj Jain And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bir Singh, Prateek Tyagi, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashank Shekhar Singh, C.S.C., Shiv
Prakash Gupta
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is
taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Meerut
Development Authority.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority
has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the
present writ petition on the ground that an efficacious and alternative
statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 41(3) of the U.P.
Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which has not been availed. It
is thus contended that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of availability of such alternative remedy.
3. Learned counsel for the prays for withdrawal of instant petition with
liberty to avail aforesaid statutory remedy.
4. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the
aforesaid liberty.
5. It is provided that, in the event of any delay in filing the revision, the same
shall stand condoned, provided the appeal is instituted within a period of one
month from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.
6. Certified copy of relevant documents may be returned to the learned
counsel for the applicant after retaining the photocopy of the same on record
as per the rules of the High Court.
April 23, 2026
A. Tripathi
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AKHILESH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…